Seaton Nick Seaton of the Campaign for Real Education says teaching about sex and relationships should be left to the parents.

With hundreds of newly elected Conservative councillors about to start work, is it too much to hope there will be some who will always think and act like responsible human beings?  Or will the old guard draw them into the 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' mentality that has brought the whole political system into disrepute?

Last week, Conservative-controlled Kent was again in the news for all the wrong reasons. Parents were angry because Bromstone Primary School in Broadstairs had held a 'gay' assembly where children as young as four were told about same-sex relationships.  This was done in support of an 'International Day Against Homophobia  and Transphobia'.

Surely, anything appearing in a primary school with a title like that should have gone straight into the waste bin, not been officially promoted by those responsible for small children?

The headmaster, Nigel Utton, defended the school's position, telling The Daily Telegraph it was 'part of a county-wide initiative encouraged by Kent county council'.  The council's education officer, Lynne Miller, said:  'Schools are well-placed to explore different lifestyles as they are able to reach all children and young people and do this in a professional and evidence-based way and within a safe learning environment.'

Ms Miller echoes a UNESCO document, which gleefully describes children in schools as 'a captive audience' for politically correct, non-judgmental values education including sex and relationship education (SRE).

Though its stated purpose is to reduce sexually-transmitted diseases and unwanted teenage pregnancies, many believe that SRE's primary purpose is to undermine traditional family values and create conflict between young people and their parents. (If you think non-judgmental SRE is a good thing, why have STDs among young people increased so dramatically since it became widespread? Why have teenage pregnancy figures not fallen as a result of all the taxpayers' pounds spent on what is supposed to be prevention?)

And what does Lynne Miller mean by 'a safe learning environment'?  Any child of mine who attended a school  like this would never be allowed through its doors again until the headteacher and those responsible had been sent on their way.

As a result of this shameful mismanagement, Bromstone Primary's children are now confused. Gemma  Martin, who has two children aged 4 and 7 at the school, said little girls are now afraid to cuddle each other  in case others think they are gay.  Another parent, Michelle Cosgrove, said the school treated  them as 'homophobic' because they asked why they had not been consulted.

What is at stake here is not how adults conduct their private lives. It's about why children go to school and whether the state should be allowed to mould children's attitudes and values in ways that offend
their parents.

Why is this important for councillors?  This was 'a county-wide initiative'.  It's not a loony, left-wing borough. It's leafy, Conservative Kent.

Who is to say that those who regard this as council-sponsored child abuse are wrong? And who is ultimately responsible? Is it elected politicians? Or misguided officials and teachers who think they know better than caring parents?